Central Administrative Tribunal - Jabalpur
Ashok Kumar Nag vs Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya on 26 September, 2025
1
(Reserved on 11.09.2025)
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
JABALPUR BENCH
(Circuit Sitting at Bilaspur)
This the 26th day of September, 2025
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AKHIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON'BLE MRS. MALLIKA ARYA, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER
Original Application No. 641 of 2022
Ashok Kumar Nag, S/o Late Dr. Sahu, Aged about 51 years, working as
Chowkidar, Qr. No. 36, Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya, Dongargarh,
District - Rajnandgaon (CG) - 495677. .......Applicant
Advocate for the applicant: Shri Ajay Kumar Barik
VERSUS
1. Union of India through the Secretary, Department of Human
Resources and Development, Central Secretariat, New Delhi.
2. The director, Government of India, Ministry of Personnel, Public
Grievances and Pensions , Department of Personnel and Training,
Khan Market, New Delhi.
3. The Deputy Director, Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti (Ministry of
Human Resources, Development, Department of Education),
Regional Office - 160, Zone-II, M.P Nagar, Bhopal (M.P) - 462011.
4. The Principal, Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya, Dongargarh at Post -
Dongarrah, District - Rajnandgaon (CG) - 491445.
5. The Assistant Commissioner (S.A), Navodaya Vidyalaya, Raipur,
At post Raipur, District Raipur (C.G) - 492015.
6. The Deputy Commissioner (I/C), Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti,
Department of School Education and Literacy, Government of
India, Regional Office, A-135/A, Alkapuri, Habibganj, Bhopal
(M.P) - 462024. ......Respondents
Advocate for the respondents: Shri Palas Tiwari
Page 1 of 18
ANAND 2025.09.26
PRAKASH 13:33:24
DUBEY +05'30'
2
ORDER
By Akhil Kumar Srivastava, JM-
In the present original application, the applicant, who was initially engaged as daily wager by the Principal, Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya, Dongargarh on 23.07.1997, is seeking direction to the respondents to regularize his services.
2. Learned counsel for the applicant contended that since the applicant is continuously working in casual capacity with the respondents, he is entitled for regularization as per the Office Memorandum dated 10.09.1993 (Annexure A-3) issued by the DOPT regarding grant of temporary status and regularization of casual workers. Learned counsel for the applicant also cited that judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 20.12.2024 passed in Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (C) No. 5580/2024 - Jaggo Vs. U.O.I & Ors and the judgment dated 19.08.2025 passed in Civil Appeal No. 8558/2018 - Dharam Singh & Ors. Vs. U.O.I & Ors and submitted that in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in above judgments, the applicant's deserves consideration for regularization.
Page 2 of 18ANAND 2025.09.26 PRAKASH 13:33:24 DUBEY +05'30' 3
3. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents raised preliminary objection to the effect that the earlier OA No. 436/2021 filed by the applicant was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to the applicant to file a detailed representation before the competent authority but without making such representation, the applicant has filed the present original application seeking similar relief and thus the OA may be dismissed being barred by principle of 'res-judicata'.
4. On merits, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the applicant was initially engaged as daily wager without following regular recruitment process. Therefore, mere completion of many years of service does not entitled a daily wage employee to claim regularization. Learned counsel for the respondents further submitted that public employment must adhere to the principles of equality of opportunity, therefore, granting regularization to the applicant would violate the rights of other eligible candidates who are waiting for regular recruitment. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the respondents has cited the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka Vs. Uma Devi (3) (2006) 4 SCC 1. Learned counsel for the Page 3 of 18 ANAND 2025.09.26 PRAKASH 13:33:24 DUBEY +05'30' 4 respondents also cited the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Rajasthan Vs. Daya Lal - 2011 (2) SCC 429 and submitted that no direction can be issued to regularize/absorb unless the employee claiming regularization had been appointed in pursuance of a regular recruitment in accordance with relevant rules. Therefore, the learned counsel for the respondents prayed that the original application being devoid of merit, may be dismissed.
5. Having given careful consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and the materials on record, we are of the view that the applicant's long and uninterrupted service for the periods extending will beyond ten years cannot be ignored merely because of his initial appointment was as part time or daily wager. The spirit of his employment must be taken into consideration in the light of his sustained contribution, the integral nature of his work and the fact that no evidence suggests his engagement was through any illegal means. While dealing with the similar issue in the case of Jaggo Vs U.O.I & Ors (Supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed the following and allowed the appeals: -
Page 4 of 18ANAND 2025.09.26 PRAKASH 13:33:24 DUBEY +05'30' 5 "10. The appellants, throughout their tenure, were engaged in performing essential duties that were indispensable to the day-to-day functioning of the offices of the Central Water Commission (CWC).
Applicant Nos. 1, 2, and 3, as Safaiwalis, were responsible for maintaining hygiene, cleanliness, and a conducive working environment within the office premises. Their duties involved sweeping. dusting, and cleaning of floors, workstations, and common areas a set of responsibilities that directly contributed to the basic operational functionality of the CWC. Applicant No. 5, in the role of a Khallasi (with additional functions akin to those of a Mali), was entrusted with critical maintenance tasks, including gardening, upkeep of outdoor premises, and ensuring orderly surroundings.
12. Despite being labelled as "part-time workers," the appellants performed these essential tasks on a daily and continuous basis over extensive periods, ranging from over a decade to nearly two decades. Their engagement was not sporadic or temporary in nature; instead, it was recurrent, regular, and akin to the responsibilities typically associated with sanctioned posts. Moreover, the respondents did not engage any other personnel for these tasks during the appellants' Page 5 of 18 ANAND 2025.09.26 PRAKASH 13:33:24 DUBEY +05'30' 6 tenure, underscoring the indispensable nature of their work.
13. The claim by the respondents that these were not regular posts lacks merit, as the nature of the work performed by the appellants was perennial and fundamental to the functioning of the offices. The recurring nature of these duties necessitates their classification as regular posts, irrespective of how their initial engagements were labelled. It is also noteworthy that subsequent outsourcing of these same tasks to private agencies after the appellants' termination demonstrates the inherent need for these services. This act of outsourcing, which effectively replaced one set of workers with another, further underscores that the work in question was neither temporary nor occasional.
14. The abrupt termination of the appellants' services, following dismissal of their Original Application before the Tribunal, was arbitrary and devoid of any justification. The termination letters, issued without prior notice or explanation, violated fundamental principles of natural justice. It is a settled principle of law that even contractual employees are entitled to a fair hearing before any adverse action is taken against Page 6 of 18 ANAND 2025.09.26 PRAKASH 13:33:24 DUBEY +05'30' 7 them, particularly when their service records are unblemished. In this case, the appellants were given no opportunity to be heard, nor were they provided any reasons for their dismissal, which followed nearly two decades of dedicated service.
15. Furthermore, the respondents' conduct in issuing tenders for outsourcing the same tasks during the pendency of judicial proceedings, despite a stay order from the Tribunal directing maintenance of status quo, reveals lack of bona fide intentions. Such actions not only contravened judicial directives but also underscored the respondents' unwillingness to acknowledge the appellants' rightful claims to regularization.
16. The appellants' consistent performance over their long tenures further solidifies their claim for regularization. At no point during their engagement did the respondents raise any issues regarding their competence or performance. On the contrary, their services were extended repeatedly over the years, and their remuneration, though minimal, was incrementally increased which was an implicit acknowledgment of their satisfactory performance. The respondents' Page 7 of 18 ANAND 2025.09.26 PRAKASH 13:33:24 DUBEY +05'30' 8 belated plea of alleged unsatisfactory service appears to be an afterthought and lacks credibility.
17. As for the argument relating to educational qualifications, we find it untenable in the present context. The nature of duties the appellants performed- cleaning, sweeping, dusting, and gardening-does not inherently mandate formal educational prerequisites. It would be unjust to rely on educational criteria that were never central to their engagement or the performance of their duties for decades. Moreover, the respondents themselves have, by their conduct, shown that such criteria were not strictly enforced in other cases of regularization. The appellants' long-standing satisfactory performance itself attests to their capability to discharge these functions, making rigid insistence on formal educational requirements an unreasonable hurdle."
6. While dealing with the issue regarding regularization of a casual labour/daily wager, the Hon'ble Apex Court has also considered the judgment in the case of Uma Devi (Supra) and has clearly observed in the case of Jaggo (Supra) as under: -
Page 8 of 18ANAND 2025.09.26 PRAKASH 13:33:24 DUBEY +05'30' 9 "20. It is well established that the decision in Uma Devi (supra) does not intend to penalize employees who have rendered long years of service fulfilling ongoing and necessary functions of the State or its instrumentalities. The said judgment sought to prevent backdoor entries and illegal appointments that circumvent constitutional requirements. However, where appointments were not illegal but possibly "irregular," and where employees had served continuously against the backdrop of sanctioned functions for a considerable period, the need for a fair and humane resolution becomes paramount.
Prolonged, continuous, and unblemished service performing tasks inherently required on a regular basis can, over the time, transform what was initially ad-hoc or temporary into a scenario demanding fair regularization. In a recent judgement of this Court in Vinod Kumar and Ors. Etc. Vs. Union of India & Ors., it was held that procedural formalities cannot be used to deny regularization of service to an employee whose appointment was termed "temporary" but has performed the same duties as performed by the regular employee over a considerable period in the capacity of the regular employee. The relevant paras of this judgment have been reproduced below:-
Page 9 of 18ANAND 2025.09.26 PRAKASH 13:33:24 DUBEY +05'30' 10 "6. The application of the judgment in Uma Devi (supra) by the High Court does not fit squarely with the facts at hand, given the specific circumstances under which the appellants were employed and have continued their service. The reliance on procedural formalities at the outset cannot be used to perpetually deny substantive rights that have accrued over a considerable period through continuous service. Their promotion was based on a specific notification for vacancies and a subsequent circular, followed by a selection process involving written tests and interviews, which distinguishes their case from the appointments through back door entry as discussed in the case of Uma Devi (supra).
7. The judgment in the case Uma Devi (supra) also distinguished between "irregular" and "illegal"
appointments underscoring the importance of considering certain appointments [2024] 1 S.C.R. 1230 even if were not made strictly in accordance with the prescribed Rules and Procedure, cannot be said to have been made illegally if they had followed the procedures of regular appointments such as conduct of written examinations or interviews as in the present case..
21. The High Court placed undue emphasis on the initial label of the appellants' engagements and the outsourcing decision taken after their dismissal. Courts must look beyond the surface labels and consider the realities of employment:
Page 10 of 18ANAND 2025.09.26 PRAKASH 13:33:24 DUBEY +05'30' 11 "continuous, long-term service, indispensable duties, and absence of any mala fide or illegalities in their appointments. In that light, refusing regularization simply because their original terms did not explicitly state so, or because an outsourcing policy was belatedly introduced, would be contrary to principles of fairness and equity."
22. The pervasive misuse of temporary employment contracts, as exemplified in this case, reflects a broader systemic issue that adversely affects workers' rights and job security. In the private sector, the rise of the gig economy has led to an increase in precarious employment arrangements, often characterized by lack of benefits, job security, and fair treatment. Such practices have been criticized for exploiting workers and undermining labour standards. Government institutions, entrusted with upholding the principles of fairness and justice, bear an even greater responsibility to avoid such exploitative employment practices. When public sector entities engage in misuse of temporary contracts, it not only mirrors the detrimental trends observed in the gig economy but also sets a concerning precedent that can erode public trust in governmental operations."
Page 11 of 18ANAND 2025.09.26 PRAKASH 13:33:24 DUBEY +05'30' 12
7. While allowing the case of Jaggo (Supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court has further emphasize the judgment in the case of Uma Devi (Supra) and held as following: -
"26. While the judgment in Uma Devi (Supra) sought to curtail the practice of backdoor entries and ensure appointments adhered to constitutional principles, it is regrettable that its principles are often misinterpreted or misapplied to deny legitimate claims of long-serving employees. This judgment aimed to distinguish between "illegal" and "irregular" appointment. It categorically held that employees in irregular appointments, who were engaged in duly sanctioned posts and had served continuously for more than ten years, should be considered for regularization as a one time measure. However, the laudable intent of the judgment is being subverted when institutions rely on its dicta to indiscriminately reject the claims of employees, even in cases where their appointments are not illegal, but merely lack adherence to procedural formalities. Government departments often cite the judgment of Uma Devi (Supra) to argue that no vested right to regularization exists for temporary employees overlooking the judgment's explicit acknowledgment of cases where regularization is appropriate. This selective application distorts the judgment's spirit and purpose, effectively weaponizing it against employees who have rendered indispensable service over decades."
8. The Hon'ble Apex Court following their view in the case of Jaggo (Supra) has also allowed the case of Dharam Singh & Ors (Supra) expressing their categorical view which is as under: -
Page 12 of 18ANAND 2025.09.26 PRAKASH 13:33:24 DUBEY +05'30' 13 "11. Furthermore, it must be clarified that the reliance placed by the High Court on Umadevi (Supra) to non-
suit the appellants is misplaced. Unlike Umadevi (Supra), the challenge before us is not an invitation to bypass the constitutional scheme of public employment. It is a challenge to the State's arbitrary refusals to sanction posts despite the employer's own acknowledgement of need and decades of continuous reliance on the very workforce. On the other hand, Umadevi (Supra) draws a distinction between illegal appointments and irregular engagements and does not endorse the perpetuation of precarious employment where the work itself is permanent and the State has failed, for years, to put its house in order. Recent decisions of this Court in Jaggo v. Union of India4 and in Shripal & Another v. Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabads have emphatically cautioned that Umadevi (Supra) cannot be deployed as a shield to justify exploitation through long-term "ad hocism", the use of outsourcing as a proxy, or the denial of basic parity where identical duties are exacted over extended periods. The principles articulated therein apply with full force to the present case. The relevant paras from Shripal (supra) have been reproduced hereunder:
Page 13 of 18ANAND 2025.09.26 PRAKASH 13:33:24 DUBEY +05'30' 14 "14. The Respondent Employer places reliance on Umadevi (supra)2 to contend that daily-wage or temporary employees cannot claim permanent absorption in the absence of statutory rules providing such absorption. However, as frequently reiterated, Uma Devi itself distinguishes between appointments that are "illegal" and those that are "irregular," the latter being eligible for regularization if they meet certain conditions. More importantly, Uma Devi cannot serve as a shield to justify exploitative engagements persisting for years without the Employer undertaking legitimate recruitment.
Given the record which shows no true contractor-based arrangement and a consistent need for permanent horticultural staff the alleged asserted ban on fresh recruitment, though real, cannot justify indefinite daily-wage status or continued unfair practice.
12. ....................
13. As we have observed in both Jaggo (Supra) and Shripal (Supra), outsourcing canno0t become a convenient shield to perpetuate precariousness and to sidestep fair engagement practices where the work is inherently perennial. The Commission's further contention that the appellants are not "full time" employees but continue only by virtue of interim orders also does not advance their case. That interim protection was granted precisely because of the long history of engagement and the pendency of the challenge to the State's refusals. It neither creates rights that did not exist nor Page 14 of 18 ANAND 2025.09.26 PRAKASH 13:33:24 DUBEY +05'30' 15 erases entitlements that may arise upon a proper adjudication of the legality of those refusals.
14. The learned Single Judge of the High Court also declined relief on the footing that the petitioners had not specifically assailed the subsequent decision dated 25.11.2003. However, that view overlooks that the writ petition squarely challenged the 11.11.1999 refusal as the High Court itself directed a fresh decision during pendency, and the later rejection was placed on record by the respondents. In such circumstances, we believe that the High Court was obliged to examine the legality of the State's stance in refusing sanction, whether in 1999 or upon reconsideration in 2003. rather than dispose of the matter on a mere technicality. The Division Bench of the High Court compounded the error by affirming the dismissal without engaging with the principal challenge or the intervening material. The approach of both the Courts, in reducing the dispute to a mechanical enquiry about "rules" and "vacancy" while ignoring the core question of arbitrariness in the State's refusal to sanction posts despite perennial need and long service, cannot be sustained.
15. Therefore, in view of the foregoing observations, the impugned order of the High Court cannot be sustained. The Page 15 of 18 ANAND 2025.09.26 PRAKASH 13:33:24 DUBEY +05'30' 16 State's refusals dated 11.11.1999 and 25.11.2003, in so far as they concern the Commission's proposals for sanction/creation of Class-III/Class-IV posts to address perennial ministerial/attendant work, are held unsustainable and stand quashed.
16. The appeal must, accordingly, be allowed.
17. Before concluding, we think it necessary to recall that the State (here referring to both the Union and the State governments) is not a mere market participant but a constitutional employer. It cannot balance budgets on the backs of those who perform the most basic and recurring public functions. Where work recurs day after day and year after year, the establishment must reflect that reality in its sanctioned strength and engagement practices. The long- term extraction of regular labour under temporary labels corrodes confidence in public administration and offends the promise of equal protection. Financial stringency certainly has a place in public policy, but it is not a talisman that overrides fairness, reason and the duty to organize work on lawful lines.
18. Moreover, it must necessarily be noted that "ad- hocism" thrives where administration is opaque. The State Departments must keep and produce accurate establishment Page 16 of 18 ANAND 2025.09.26 PRAKASH 13:33:24 DUBEY +05'30' 17 registers, muster rolls and outsourcing arrangements, and they must explain, with evidence, why they prefer precarious engagement over sanctioned posts where the work is perennial. If "constraint" is invoked, the record should show what alternatives were considered, why similarly placed workers were treated differently, and how the chosen course aligns with Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India. Sensitivity to the human consequences of prolonged insecurity is not sentimentality. It is a constitutional discipline that should inform every decision affecting those who keep public offices running.
19. Having regard to the long, undisputed service of the appellants, the admitted perennial nature of their duties, and the material indicating vacancies and comparator regularizations, we issue the following directions........."
9. In the present case, it is an undisputed fact that the applicant was engaged as daily wager away back in the year 1997 and continued to served with the department till 2017, as would be evident from his representation dated 03.02.2017 (Annexure A-9). It is also noted that the original application no. 436/2021 filed by the applicant was withdrawn seeking liberty to file detailed Page 17 of 18 ANAND 2025.09.26 PRAKASH 13:33:24 DUBEY +05'30' 18 representation but the record of the OA nowhere shows that any such representation has been moved by the applicant and he has filed the present Original Application seeking similar relief. It is also noted that the applicant is presently working with the department through an agency and no longer as daily wager on the role of the department and also not being paid from government fund. Be that as it may, since the applicant had continued to work with the department for more than 19 years uninterruptedly which has not been denied by the respondents, the claim of the applicant deserves consideration in the light of the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Jaggo (Supra).
10. In view of the above settled proposition of law, the Original Application No. 641/2022 is allowed. The respondents are directed to consider the claim of the applicant for regularization in accordance with rules, if the applicant is otherwise found suitable, within a period of three months from the date of communication of this order.
11. No order as to costs.
(Mallika Arya) (Akhil Kumar Srivastava) Administrative Member Judicial Member Anand...
Page 18 of 18ANAND 2025.09.26 PRAKASH 13:33:24 DUBEY +05'30'